Wikileaks Payback - Offensive and Defensive

[Peter Lemkin]

WikiLeaks broke no rules, Visa study finds

But credit card company continues to block donations
Iain Thomson in San Francisco
V3.co.uk, 27 Jan 2011
A study into WikiLeaks by a third-party consultant commissioned by credit card company Visa has cleared the site of any illegal activity.
Visa blocked donations to WikiLeaks last month, saying that it would have to examine the legality of the site.



Visa hired Norway-based financial services company Teller AS to investigate WikiLeaks and its Icelandic fundraising body the Sunshine Press.
According to documents obtained by Associated Press, Teller AS found no instance of WikiLeaks breaking the law.
"Our lawyers have now completed their work and have found no indications that Sunshine Press acted in contravention of Visa's rules or Icelandic legislation, " Teller AS chief executive Peter Wiren said late last month.
Visa spokeswoman Amanda Kamin said that the company will carry on blocking payments to WikiLeaks until an internal Visa investigation is concluded, but declined to name a date for any report.

Visa and Mastercard were attacked by members of the Anonymous hacking organisation following their decision to block payments to the site, as was PayPal when it froze WikiLeaks' account.
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3/news/2274443/wiki...sa-iceland

I'm stating the obvious, but why would they clear them and then STILL not allow them to use their service?! Something is not being said here.....:gossip: I fear they'll hire another consulting group until they get the result they want! :mexican:

[David Guyatt]

They're probably waiting for the war powers act to be undeclared, before they can return to normal operation again and just concentrate on fleecing everyone as usual.

:flames:

[Peter Lemkin]

Zhiwei (Jack) Chen's belongings were seized at a Georgia Institute of Technology dorm on Thursday Jan 27 on the basis of an FBI search warrant also issued to dozens of other individuals who remain unnamed. The FBI stated that these warrants were issued in connection with an ongoing investigation into cyber-attacks on "major companies and organizations." Wikileaks was not named but the elusive 'Anonymous group' was. The FBI writes in its press release:
A group calling itself "Anonymous" has claimed responsibility for the attacks, saying they conducted them in protest of the companies' and organizations' actions.
Chen is likely thought to be associated in some way with this 'group' of activists because he operated a chat room in which "Payback" topics were discussed. Tragically, however, the legal relevance of holding an online chat with an individual who claims to be "a member of" Anonymous has yet to be articulated. Here are some crucial considerations that must be addressed in any context in which "membership" in the "group" is alleged, for purposes of legal action.
It is immediately clear to anyone who has a passing familiarity with the group that the expression "calling itself 'Anonymous'" in the above statement by the FBI does not denote anything linguistically meaningful. By virtue of the very nature of the 'group', any attempt to define it or to assign a fixed membership list is doomed to failure. Not only are 'members' located all over the globe, but there is no fixed set of defining principles that can be used to single-out any particular group of individuals at any given point in time. There is no official set of membership criteria, no assigned governing body and no fixed meeting place.
Any prosecution will have to be directed at individuals carrying out a particular well-defined set of actions that directly violate laws like the Computer Misuse Act of 1990. This is precisely why the UK PCeU cited this violation explicitly when 5 people were arrested in connection with pro-WikiLeaks DDoS attacks.
No such charges have been brought against Zhiwei Jack Chen, but this did not deter the FBI from adding, in its official statement on the issued search warrants, that
The FBI also is reminding the public that facilitating or conducting a DDoS attack is illegal, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, as well as exposing participants to significant civil liability.
Clearly, while carrying out DDoS attacks is a crime, administrating a chat room is not. It is also legal for an American citizen to associate with any activist group, provided that the individual does not engage in protests that are not "peaceful". Freedom of peaceful assembly is guaranteed by The First Amendment, even when that group purports to be involved in activities associated with "Operation Payback." It even applies, of course, to members of the KKK.
Operation Payback is a name commonly used to refer to a cause associated with pro-WikiLeaks activists who participated in DDoS attacks against various institutions. Yet it is safe to assume that not all chat participants and chat room administrators participate in the attacks; Chen is one of many individuals who assert that they have not participated in the attacks, despite their presence on Anonymous-related IRC channels. Many journalists and academic researchers who did not also engage in DDoS attacks (or other punishable activities) have also participated in chats relating to Operation Payback.
Does any and all 'participation' warrant search and seizure from the United States? The FBI's statement would certainly have us draw a direct link between peaceful assembly with the Anonymous 'group', loosely defined, and severe punishment. Furthermore, association with Anonymous is not necessary in order to have one's privacy violated, judging from the actions taken by the US Department of Justice when subpoenas were issued to Twitter, which ordered Twitter to provide any and all information regarding any account in any way associated with WikiLeaks and others.
In the case of Zhiwei Jack Chen, we don't know yet what valid evidence will be brought against him, if any, in the event that he should be charged with a crime. We do know, however, that public statements made and other actions taken by government authorities clearly have the result of discouraging dissent and activism. Anonymous operations, many of them peaceful and fully legal (including the recent operation of faxing literature to Egyptian authorities) aim to support institutions and individuals that unmask government complicity in illegal activities and human rights violations.
As a result of actions taken to discourage dissent, individuals are harmed. In this case, Mr. Chen's electronic devices have been seized, including storage devices containing "study materials and class documents" and "it could be weeks or months before he knows anything about the investigation." Chen has not been charged with any crime and has been told by his university, The Georgia Institute of Technology, not to speak with the press.
In sum, Chen's right to freely pursue his education has been infringed upon by the FBI seizure, which is based on an alleged association with an elusive group, and Chen's right to free expression has been revoked by his university, whose administrators likely frown upon the prospect of 'negative press'. Judging from the lack of public outrage, they may be getting exactly what they want.
Article:
http://wlcentral.org/node/1216

[Peter Lemkin]

On January 20, WL Central reported "Bloomberg discloses FBI Contractor admits to Spying on Swedish".
Yesterday, Bloomberg reporter Michael Riley 're-drafts' his flawed article as a magazine story in Bloomberg Business Week.
On the day the original Bloomberg article appeared, Andy Greenberg of Forbes reported that he interviewed Robert Boback of Tiversa about the original Bloomberg article claims:
Boback sounded distinctly less sure of his firm's deductions than he did in the Bloomberg piece. 'What we saw were people who were searching [computers connected to filesharing networks] for .xls, .doc, .pdf, and searching for those generic terms over and over again,' says Boback. 'They had multiple Swedish IPs. Can I say that those are WikiLeaks? I can't. But we can track the downloads of people doing that, and a short time after those files were downloaded, they're listed on WikiLeaks.' (Source: Forbes)
Greenberg also writes that:
Boback...says that he saw downloads of documents that later were posted to WikiLeaks from other countries too, both 'in the U.S. and across Europe.' 'Many of the searches are in Sweden, many are outside,' adds Boback. 'It's hard for us to say that any IP address was WikiLeaks.' (Source: Forbes)
Even Paul Ohm, the "expert in cyber crime at the University of Colorado in Boulder" that Riley quotes in the original Bloomberg piece posts his own response to the quality of Riley's reportage.
On his blog, Freedom to Tinker, Ohm writes:
I have no idea whether these accusations are true, but I am interested to learn from the story that if they are true they might provide 'an alternate path for prosecuting WikiLeaks,' most importantly because the reporter [Michael Riley] attributes this claim to me. Although I wasn't misquoted in the article, I think what I said to the reporter is a few shades away from what he reported, so I wanted to clarify what I think about this.The question presented by the reporter to me (though not in these words) was: is it a violation of the CFAA to systematically crawl a p2p network like Limewire searching for and downloading files that might be mistakenly shared, like spreadsheets or word processing documents full of secrets?
I don't think so. With everything I know about the text of this statute, the legislative history surrounding its enactment, and the cases that have interpreted it, this kind of searching and downloading won't "exceed the authorized access" of the p2p network. This simply isn't a crime under the CFAA.
But although I don't think this is a viable theory, I can't unequivocally dismiss it for a few reasons, all of which I tried to convey in the interview. First, some courts have interpreted 'exceeds authorized access' broadly, especially in civil lawsuits arising under the CFAA. For example, back in 2001, one court declared it a CFAA violation to utilize a spider capable of collecting prices from a travel website by a competitor, if the defendant built the spider by taking advantage of 'proprietary information' from a former employee of the plaintiff.
Second, it seems self-evident that these confidential files are being shared on accident. The users 'leaking' these files are either misunderstanding or misconfiguring their p2p clients in ways that would horrify them, if only they knew the truth. While this doesn't translate directly into 'exceeds authorized access,' it might weigh heavily in court, especially if the government can show that a reasonable searcher/downloader would immediately and unambiguously understand that the files were shared on accident.
Third, let's be realistic: there may be judges who are so troubled by what they see as the harm caused by Wikileaks that they might be willing to read the open-textured and mostly undefined terms of the CFAA broadly if it might help throw a hurdle in Wikileaks' way. I'm not saying that judges will bend the law to the facts, but I think that with a law as vague as the CFAA, multiple interpretations are defensible.
But I restate my conclusion: I think a prosecution under the CFAA against someone for searching a p2p network should fail. The text and caselaw of the CFAA don't support such a prosecution. Maybe it's 'not a slam dunk either way,' as I am quoted saying in the story, but for the lawyers defending against such a theory, it's at worst an easy layup. (Source: Freedom To Tinker)
In the newer Bloomberg version, Riley does not add anything of substance to his original draft. He merely adds a stylistic flourish more suitable to magazine reportage. He recounts, for example, how a Tiversa analyst, "taps a few keys, and up pops the cell phone number of actress Lucy Liu along with the pseudonym she uses to check into hotelsattached to a production company document clearly labeled 'not to be made public.'"
The article then jumps into a spin cycle of logic saying, "Assange has told interviewers that his group has damaging information on pharmaceutical, energy, and financial companies, Boback confirms that confidential corporate documents are readily accessible [on file-sharing platforms]." Indeed, Tiversa has told Riley that it hacks into other people's computers, and then demonstrates this fact. WL Central confirms that Riley is a 'sloppy' reporter.
Traditional media industries operate in what economists refer to as a 'dual product market'. They produce two commodities: content and audiences. Audiences are attracted to content, and those audiences are then sold to advertisers.
Media firms, like Bloomberg, fall under the traditional research and development business model - with its characteristic high production and low replication costs. Since creativity and intellectual property are both expensive and time consuming - what economists refer to as Baumol's effect, media firms, like Bloomberg L.P., have an economic imperative to control the entire supply chain and their downstream access to audiences.
What that means is that while most industries today are under pressure to flatten their business models, media firms, like Bloomberg L.P., are compelled to grow both horizontally and vertically. A natural by-product of this growth is that they have the ability to exploit their vertical and horizontal economies of scale by repurposing flawed and provocative content across multiple platforms.
The power of the press lies not merely in its capacity to express ideas. Media firms, like Bloomberg L.P., have an inordinate capacity to actually set the agenda for 'what' and 'how' the public in the United States discusses anything at all, simply by virtue of the fact that these firms can replicate, and thereby amplify, their messages across a multitude of communication platforms, which they control.
The print media landscape in the United States, for example, is dominated by 14 corporations, which own a myriad of vertically and horizontally integrated communication organs for print, TV, and film. (Source: freepress.net) Considering this reality, it would appear, that Bloomberg L.P., 85% of which is owned is by one man, is an example of the alternative press in the United States.
Riley ends his second draft of the Bloomberg article with a thesis set in stark relief:
The bottom line: WikiLeaks, which says it's a passive drop box for whistle-blowers, is accused of searching hard drives for classified documents.
In a like manner, we have our own thesis, set in equally sharp relief:
The bottom line: Bloomberg, which states on its ethics page that it adheres to:
1. Accuracy.
For the reader to believe our interpretations, we must start with accurate information, honestly and professionally gathered. Moreover, our interpretation must flow from the facts and be reasonable.
Inaccurate or sloppy reporting of material that appears anywhere under the BusinessWeek name violates the spirit of this Code. The responsibility for accuracy lies with everyone who touches the editorial product. (Source: Bloomberg Business Week | Ethics
is accused of violating its own journalistic standards.
Article:
http://wlcentral.org/node/1209

[Magda Hassan]

Anonymous Hackers Pay Back FBI Snitch with 50,000 Leaked Emails

Adrian Chen Right now you can download a 4.7 gigabyte file full of about 50,000 emails stolen from a computer security expert named Aaron Barr. That's what happens when you cross the hacking collective Anonymous.
zone: valleywaginside
size: 300x600
keywords: origin=gawker, refer=facebook

Hackers from Anonymous, best-known for attacks on Scientology and Wikileaks detractors, trashed Barr's online life Sunday evening after learning he planned to meet with the FBI tomorrow and hand over information he'd gathered about them. They defaced the website of HBGary Federal, the D.C.-based computer security firm Barr works for. Then they took over Barr's Twitter account, tweeting his social security number and a file containing 50,000 HBGary company emails. They even claim to have wiped his iPad.
Barr became a target of Anonymous after he appeared in a Financial Times article this weekend claiming he'd "penetrated" the group, identifying members by watching their chats and analyzing social networking profiles. He described a hierarchy of 30 core Anonymous members along with 10 who "are the most senior and co-ordinate and manage most of the decisions." Barr said the information could help authorities make arrests in their ongoing investigation into Anonymous' "Operation Payback" attacks against Mastercard and Visa in December; he cast Anonymous as an organized crime syndicate about to be blown open.
This pissed off Anonymous. They see themselves as an utterly democratic mass of untraceable Internet users who come and go as they please. It didn't help that members' confidence in their anonymity had already been rattled by a series of high-profile FBI raids.
"The article is complete crap. He's one of the millions of security tools who think they know what they're talking about," an Anonymous associate told us. "There's really no hierarchy.... no one can tell anyone else what to do." And from what we and others have seen, he's right.
So Anonymous hackers went to work. Their rage was further stoked when they discovered in Barr's email account a document containing the real names and personal information of suspected Anonymous members, along with indications he was going to sell it to the FBI. According to our source, the hackers decided to confront Barr directly. They identified the handle he'd been using to spy on their group for months: "CogAnon". Then they lured CogAnon into a chat room and revealed that he'd been compromised.
"All your emails were dropped. Meaning we know you were trying to sell your fucking research to the FBI. And the sad thing is the names and info in that document//research is all fucking fake… you could have gotten a lot of random innocent people arrested," wrote one Anonymous member.
"That's an old version of my research…. not trying to sell it... much has changed," Barr wrote.
"I saw your latest data and it's all the same shit," snapped back another Anonymous member.
Though they claim it was riddled with inaccuracies, the hackers promptly posted the document, as if to prove how little they cared about the information.
This is a typical mode of attack for Anonymous when they're up against an individual or lightly-defended target: Dig up confidential information through hacking or social engineering, then dump it on the Internet as a "fuck you." They did it to a bullying copyright lawyer in England, leaking a database of 5,000 porn pirates he intended to sue. And, yes, they did it to Gawker. No wonder they like Wikileaks.
In this case, Anonymous' attack will probably just bring heavier scrutiny. HBGary founder Greg Hoglund told Brian Krebs. "They didn't just pick on any company, but we try to protect the US government from hackers. They couldn't have chosen a worse company to pick on."
http://gawker.com/#!5753570/anonymous-ha...ked-emails

[Peter Lemkin]

Anonymous Hackers Pay Back FBI Snitch with 50,000 Leaked Emails

Adrian Chen Right now you can download a 4.7 gigabyte file full of about 50,000 emails stolen from a computer security expert named Aaron Barr. That's what happens when you cross the hacking collective Anonymous.
zone: valleywaginside
size: 300x600
keywords: origin=gawker, refer=facebook

Hackers from Anonymous, best-known for attacks on Scientology and Wikileaks detractors, trashed Barr's online life Sunday evening after learning he planned to meet with the FBI tomorrow and hand over information he'd gathered about them. They defaced the website of HBGary Federal, the D.C.-based computer security firm Barr works for. Then they took over Barr's Twitter account, tweeting his social security number and a file containing 50,000 HBGary company emails. They even claim to have wiped his iPad.
Barr became a target of Anonymous after he appeared in a Financial Times article this weekend claiming he'd "penetrated" the group, identifying members by watching their chats and analyzing social networking profiles. He described a hierarchy of 30 core Anonymous members along with 10 who "are the most senior and co-ordinate and manage most of the decisions." Barr said the information could help authorities make arrests in their ongoing investigation into Anonymous' "Operation Payback" attacks against Mastercard and Visa in December; he cast Anonymous as an organized crime syndicate about to be blown open.
This pissed off Anonymous. They see themselves as an utterly democratic mass of untraceable Internet users who come and go as they please. It didn't help that members' confidence in their anonymity had already been rattled by a series of high-profile FBI raids.
"The article is complete crap. He's one of the millions of security tools who think they know what they're talking about," an Anonymous associate told us. "There's really no hierarchy.... no one can tell anyone else what to do." And from what we and others have seen, he's right.
So Anonymous hackers went to work. Their rage was further stoked when they discovered in Barr's email account a document containing the real names and personal information of suspected Anonymous members, along with indications he was going to sell it to the FBI. According to our source, the hackers decided to confront Barr directly. They identified the handle he'd been using to spy on their group for months: "CogAnon". Then they lured CogAnon into a chat room and revealed that he'd been compromised.
"All your emails were dropped. Meaning we know you were trying to sell your fucking research to the FBI. And the sad thing is the names and info in that document//research is all fucking fake… you could have gotten a lot of random innocent people arrested," wrote one Anonymous member.
"That's an old version of my research…. not trying to sell it... much has changed," Barr wrote.
"I saw your latest data and it's all the same shit," snapped back another Anonymous member.
Though they claim it was riddled with inaccuracies, the hackers promptly posted the document, as if to prove how little they cared about the information.
This is a typical mode of attack for Anonymous when they're up against an individual or lightly-defended target: Dig up confidential information through hacking or social engineering, then dump it on the Internet as a "fuck you." They did it to a bullying copyright lawyer in England, leaking a database of 5,000 porn pirates he intended to sue. And, yes, they did it to Gawker. No wonder they like Wikileaks.
In this case, Anonymous' attack will probably just bring heavier scrutiny. HBGary founder Greg Hoglund told Brian Krebs. "They didn't just pick on any company, but we try to protect the US government from hackers. They couldn't have chosen a worse company to pick on."
http://gawker.com/#!5753570/anonymous-ha...ked-emails

Have a nice day Mr. Barr :o:rofl:

[Peter Lemkin]

National News RSS Feed

Text messages 'could clear Assange'

6:02pm Tuesday 8th February 2011

A hoard of secret text messages could hold the key to finally clearing the name of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, a court has been told.

The whistleblower's Swedish lawyer said investigators have collected around 100 messages to and from his two alleged victims that undermine the case against him.

Bjorn Hurtig, 45, said the texts indicate the women expected to be paid, intended to get "revenge" and wanted to contact newspapers to "blast" his client's reputation, but he told Belmarsh Magistrates' Court that prosecutors in Stockholm have not let him have copies, making it impossible for Assange to receive a fair trial.

He claimed Marianne Ny, who is behind the case against the former computer hacker, warned him not to disclose the contents of the texts as it may violate rules governing the conduct of lawyers.

Mr Hurtig said: "I have been briefly allowed to see other exculpatory evidence but I have not been permitted to make copies to show my client. I consider this to be contrary to the rules of a fair trial."

The claim was made at the end of the second day of a hearing to decide whether Assange should be extradited to Sweden to be prosecuted over claims of sexual assault. The Australian, 39, faces three charges of sexually assaulting one woman and one charge of raping another during a week-long visit to Stockholm last August.

Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish authorities, said there was no reason that Assange should not be sent overseas to answer the case against him. She outlined how prosecutors tried more than 10 times over one week last September to arrange an interview with Assange before he left the country.

Assange's legal team claimed putting him into the hands of the authorities in Stockholm would be a "flagrant denial of justice" and breach his human rights. They fear a move to Sweden could lead to him being taken against his will to the United States, detained at Guantanamo Bay and ultimately executed for spying.

Further evidence emerged in more than 40 documents, including witness statements and court paperwork, published by Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens. In one statement, Mr Hurtig said Assange faced one of the "weakest" cases he has ever seen and claimed the alleged victims may have a "hidden agenda".

District Judge Howard Riddle, who moved the case from Westminster because of overwhelming media interest, adjourned the over-running case until Friday at 10.30am for a final session.

[Magda Hassan]

Court Unseals ACLU and EFF's Motions on Behalf of Twitter User Birgitta Jonsdottir

Today, a court unsealed three motions filed by the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) last month on behalf of Birgitta Jonsdottir, the Icelandic parliamentarian whose Twitter account records were targeted by the government in connection with its investigation related to WikiLeaks.
A public hearing on the motions is set for February 15 in Alexandria, Virginia. One of the motions seeks to overturn a federal court order requiring Twitter to turn over the private records of some of its users. The second filing seeks to unseal court records concerning the government's attempts to collect these kinds of private records from Twitter and other companies. The third motion was to unseal the original two motions and the hearing, which were initially sealed by the court.
In early January, the public learned that the Department of Justice had obtained a court order in December requiring Twitter to turn over the account records of five Twitter users: Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Jacob Appelbaum, Rop Gonggrijp and Jonsdottir. The federal district court unsealed that order after Twitter took steps to unseal it and to be allowed to inform its users that their information was sought by the government.
We'll have more tomorrow!
http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/cou...jonsdottir

[Magda Hassan]

Here's The Secret Document That Banks And Other Big Organizations Are Using To Prepare For Wikileaks

Joe Weisenthal | Feb. 9, 2011, 4:16 PM | 45,956 | [/url]


Image: http://wikileaks.ch/

It sounds as though the document that Wikileaks will release on Bank of America (most likely) won't be that big of a deal. But bit corporations are obviously nervous.
[url=http://wikileaks.ch/]Wikileaks has uncovered a presentation from a firm called Palantir, which at the behest of the government, has been helping companies prepare for the Wikilleaks threat.
[B]CLICK HERE TO SEE THE PRESENTATION >[/B]

http://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-...2011-2#-19

[Magda Hassan]

Secret plan to kill Wikileaks with FUD leaked





By Nate Cochrane
Feb 10, 2011 4:51 PM
Tags: Wikileaks | cablegate | Julian | Assange | dirty | tricks | FUD
Fear, uncertainty and doubt behind divide-and-conquer sabotage.
Three information security consultancies with links to US spy agencies cooked up a dirty tricks campaign late last year to destroy Wikileaks by exploiting its perceived weaknesses, reads a presentation released by the whistleblowers' organisation that it claimed to be from the conspirators.
Around December 3, it was believed consultants at US defence contractors Palantir Technologies, Berico Technologies and HBGary proposed to lawyers for a desperate Bank of America an alliance that would work to discredit the whistleblowers' website using a divide and conquer approach.
The conspirators urged a disinformation war to "feed the fuel between feuding groups" that would include leaking fake documents to "call out the error", creating "concern over the security of the infrastructure", hacking Wikileaks to discover who the leakers were to "kill the project" and a media campaign to emphasise the "radical and reckless" nature of Wikileaks.
The Wikileaks Threat outlined in a report from The Tech Herald targeted individuals including journalist, constitutional lawyer and outspoken US Government critic Glenn Greenwald and the Tor Project's Jacob Appelbaum for special attention. It called for organisations to actively use social media to spy on potential leakers and highlighted the parlous state of Wikileaks' finances.
SC Magazine understood the document came into the hands of Wikileaks sympathisers Anonymous following a successful raid on HBGary, which saw its secrets recently scattered to the Twittersphere.
Since the plan was hatched, disgruntled volunteers mentioned in the PDF have broken away from Wikileaks and proposed alternative whistleblower sites (that are yet to be built), financial institutions have withdrawn services, Appelbaum has been harassed by US Government authorities and Amazon denied service to Wikileaks' website.
"Wikileaks is NOT in a healthy position right now. Their weakness [sic] are causing great stress in the organisation which can be capitalised on," the conspirators wrote.
The document mentioned Australian Attorney General Robert McClelland prominently under Wikileaks founder Julian Assange's bio.
"McClelland has not ruled out the possibility of Australian authorities cancelling Assange's passport, and warned that he may face charges, should he return to Australia, due to the potential number of criminal laws that could have been breached by the release of the [US diplomatic cables]'," the document read.
McClelland, who also oversaw the Australian Government's computer emergency response team CERT Australia, has since said Wikileaks and Assange broke no Australian laws.
The presentation that read in equal measure battle plan and marketing proposal laid out the futility of what it proposed by admitting at the end that "traditional responses will fail".
"In the new age of mass social media, the insider threat represents an ongoing and persistent threat even if Wikileaks is shut down."

Source::Secure Computing Magazine